<p>SSobick, the LACs were created to provide a different form of education, something that focuses on smaller class sizes, increased professor interaction. It emphasizes more teaching - in the belief that this environment will better help college students, young as they are - 18 and above to 1. challenge themselves with a broader range of subjects, as implied by a liberal arts approach, 2. benefit most from professor experience and nurturing versus a predominantly TA-taught experience 3. making both lectures and tutorials take place in a small class and in doing so, making increased discussion and challenging of ideas possible.</p>
<p>I disagree with dan with the assumption that without the liberal arts, you cannot be a “well-formed human being”, but I would argue that the liberal arts is better placed at providing that service. Many do well without the liberal arts. Why? Because they knew what they wanted to do early in their lives (not everybody can be sure of that when they are 18) and they went straight to the research universities to accomplish their research dreams. Fair enough. Great for them. But how about the rest? You charge these people with wanting to be “coddled” - these people want to know more about themselves - they want to expose themselves to different subject areas before they decide. That smacks of narrow minded vitriol, and what makes you, someone who knows what he wants, qualified to insult the whole LAC community like that?</p>
<p>Sure uchris, the high tuition cost of the LAC is a turnoff. Bottomline, if you don’t see paying 40+ k in tuition per year to attend an LAC with it’s unique undergraduate experience, then don’t go. Like it or not, the big unis do emphasize more on their graduates. Many undergraduates go to an LAC to develop their talents under full professors 100% of the time (very few big unis can provide that) before they go to the prestigious big research unis to finally make the big time. The graduate school placement for many LACs speak for themselves. It’s really a case of a longer term investment. Again I’m not bashing the big Us - they are great, but the LACs cater to another group. If you don’t understand the workings of one group, and don’t experience what it is like on the other side, it’s not fair then to use oft-thrown stereotypes to pronounce which system is a better system.</p>
<p>Ssobick, the academic ranking of World universities are for “World universities”. I would like to go Harvard for my phD one day, because I am interested in doing academia. Apparently, Professor Greg Mankiw from Harvard doesn’t agree with me: see below link</p>
<p><a href=“http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-choosing-college.html[/url]”>http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-choosing-college.html</a></p>
<p>Right then - his point is clear - want to do research? - go to big Us with outstanding research faculty. But your narrow minded focus on research alone as the biggest determinant of the quality of universities misses the point that Professor Mankiw speaks about - 90 percent or a majority of students don’t go for that.</p>
<p>The Economist’s View blog speaks about the choices between the liberal arts and the research unis in his blog post:</p>
<p><a href=“http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/the_decline_of_.html[/url]”>http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/the_decline_of_.html</a></p>
<p>And he brings up a more detailed analysis examining the “decline” of the liberal arts. But he notes that the liberal arts, though not the most popular option, puts students in good stead for a wide gamut of future occupations and disciplines. Yes, there are many detractors from the LACs - right then, let them be - their charges are plausible and possible. We must learn to live with opposing views - while resisting the urge to dismiss all other non-favoured parties with nothing but a ranking but a personal vendetta to boot.</p>
<p>Here’s a piece detailing how even Harvard U wants to incorporate the features that an LAC has - teaching. I’ll tell you something - if they ever succeed, and manage to provide full profs teaching together with their research opportunities and no TAs, I’ll be the first to say that the LACs may have lost their niche in the US education system:</p>
<p><a href=“University Offices - University of Houston”>University Offices - University of Houston;
<p>Pretty unlikely that’ll happen, coz as many posters have pointed out in this thread Harvard vs LACs, each system has their purpose:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=343141&highlight=Harvard+LACs[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=343141&highlight=Harvard+LACs</a></p>
<p>And back to the ranking - for heaven’s sake Ssobick, the ranking ranks National, Big Us, in research and does not even make a mention of LACs - which ARE by nature NOT research oriented. It is logically wrong to use this ranking as gleeful proof of your disdain of LACs when the ranking never intended to look at these institutions in the first place!</p>
<p>Let’s track your response from the previous thread. After calid and blue and pointed out that the above rankings are graduate (you admit as much), ta-da! Without the rankings as your “credible” proof of whatever you want to prove - there you go, spewing out stereotyping and uninformed bias all over this thread. We are artsy-fartsy? What does mean to you? incompetence? Many LACs have strong science programs which give good placement to pre-med and research tracks. (where’s the evidence? it’s there, look it up if you want to shock yourself) As the blah blah, the importance of the LAC will decline! Woah, you sound like Mao Zedong and his much vaunted “Great Leap Forward” - making predictions that go against increased world recognition of LACs as providers of great undergraduate teaching, grad school placement, and the increased stock that the business and financial world are placing on liberal arts degrees. Nonewithstanding the observation that going to big research Us does not make you more likely to get into the selfsame big U for your phD.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you what LACs have: strong alumni connections (yes we do have them too), emphasis on teaching, greater professor interaction, training in many disciplines, greater flexibility (in changing and sampling majors, not in the range of choice), and a closer sense of community. You attempt to judge the intangible benefits with tangible, iron-clad impeachments of mollycoddling, weakness, and incompetence. This is folly. Learn from this, and learn not to be too hasty with your talk.</p>
<p>As for your bashing of the “less-research capable” Ivys, I’ll let other posters take you to task for that.</p>